Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Botucatu Medical School Sao Paulo State University - UNESP, Botucatu, Brazil.
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011 Jul 22;9:99. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-9-99.
The purpose of this study was to compare laboratory and clinical outcomes of intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI) and conventional intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in couples with repeated implantation failures.
A total of 200 couples with at least two prior unsuccessful ICSI cycles were enrolled: 100 couples were submitted to IMSI and 100 were submitted to routine ICSI. For IMSI, spermatozoa were selected at 8400× magnification using an inverted microscope equipped with Nomarski (differential interference contrast) optics. For conventional ICSI, spermatozoa were selected at 400× magnification. Clinical outcomes were evaluated between the two groups.
Study patients were comparable in age, number of treatment failures, aetiology of infertility, percentage of normal form assessed by MSOME (motile sperm organelle morphology examination), semen parameters, total number of oocytes collected, number of mature oocytes collected, total number of embryos transferred and number of high-quality embryos transferred. No statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed with regard to rates of fertilisation, implantation and pregnancy/cycle. Although not statistically significant, rates of miscarriage (IMSI:15.3% vs ICSI:31.7%), ongoing pregnancy (IMSI:22% vs ICSI:13%) and live births (IMSI:21% vs ICSI:12%) showed a trend towards better outcomes in the IMSI group. In addition, analysis of subpopulations with or without male factor showed similar results.
Our results suggest that IMSI does not provide a significant improvement in clinical outcome compared to ICSI, at least in couples with repeated implantation failures after conventional ICSI. However, it should be noted that there were clear trends for lower miscarriage rates (≈50% reduced) and higher rates of ongoing pregnancy and live births (both nearly doubled) within the IMSI group. Further confirmation as well as randomized large-scale trials are needed to confirm the beneficial effects of IMSI in couples with poor reproductive prognoses.
本研究的目的是比较形态学选择精子注射(IMSI)和常规胞浆内精子注射(ICSI)在反复着床失败夫妇中的实验室和临床结果。
共纳入 200 对至少有 2 次失败 ICSI 周期的夫妇:100 对接受 IMSI,100 对接受常规 ICSI。对于 IMSI,使用配备有诺玛斯基(微分干涉对比)光学的倒置显微镜在 8400×放大倍数下选择精子。对于常规 ICSI,在 400×放大倍数下选择精子。评估两组的临床结果。
研究患者在年龄、治疗失败次数、不孕病因、通过 MSOME(运动精子器官形态检查)评估的正常形态百分比、精液参数、采集的卵母细胞总数、采集的成熟卵母细胞总数、总胚胎数转移和高质量胚胎转移数量方面无统计学差异。两组受精率、种植率和妊娠/周期率无统计学差异。虽然没有统计学意义,但流产率(IMSI:15.3% vs ICSI:31.7%)、持续妊娠率(IMSI:22% vs ICSI:13%)和活产率(IMSI:21% vs ICSI:12%)在 IMSI 组中呈更好结果的趋势。此外,对有或没有男性因素的亚组进行分析,结果相似。
我们的结果表明,与 ICSI 相比,IMSI 并不能显著改善临床结局,至少在常规 ICSI 后反复着床失败的夫妇中是这样。然而,值得注意的是,IMSI 组的流产率(降低约 50%)和持续妊娠率(几乎翻倍)和活产率(均接近翻倍)呈明显趋势。需要进一步的确认以及随机大规模试验来确认 IMSI 在预后不良的夫妇中的有益效果。